Writing in the National Journal, defense specialist George C Wilson considers two key defense budget documents – the “National Defense Estimates,” known to Department of Defense (DOD) budget analysts as “the Greenbook,” and the “Selected Acquisition Reports,” the DOD-released estimates of past and future weapons costs – to conclude that the US government is spending more money in real terms on the Iraq war than was spent on the Vietnam war, despite the deployed military force being only one quarter the size of that used in Vietnam.
This act, the Senate's version of the House's March 23 bill, calls for $122 billion in funding for Afghanistan and Iraq, a start to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 120 days after the bill's passage, and a nonbinding goal to end military operations by March 31, 2008.
This analysis in the Congressional Quarterly points out that three independent assessments place the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus anti-terrorism activities, at amounts in excess of the Bush administration’s figures. The difference ranges from $16 billion in the estimate of the Government Accountability Office to $18 billion in the view of the Congressional Budget Office to $23 billion in the estimate of the Congressional Research Service.
This Washington Institute paper outlines how for more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Leaks regarding the Bush administration's confidence in the Iraqi prime minister and a bipartisan commission's recommendations regarding American troop withdrawals create complications during the president's trip to the Middle East.
This edition of Strategic Assessment from the Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University discusses current government policy towards Lebanon and Hezbollah, and debates the future of Israeli foreign policy after the war in Lebanon.
The annual Pentagon report on China's military power cites increased defense spending as a threat to the stability of Asia, and contends Beijing could potentially threaten the United States. But some critics say the Defense Department is hyping the China threat to justify its own massive spending.
The Defense Department's most recent assessment of China's military power presents it as a potential military rival of the United States. But some experts say China has no intention of challenging U.S. military dominance in Asia or anywhere else, and accuse the Pentagon of hyping the China threat to justify its own military spending.
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.